Why is BASIC primitive?

13»

Comments

  • : I do think the he is being rather arrogant considering his position, but I also think it isn't right to make fun of him or diss him for not knowing english (totally). So you guys need ot back off or blow off...
    :
    :
    : --------------------------------------------
    : I will bend your mind with my spoon...
    :
    :
    thanks for tryin to help mr. spoon-bender but i think that i could handle dis.
    holla

  • Sorry. That was little harsh...

    --------------------------------------------
    I will bend your mind with my spoon...

  • :
    :
    :
    With a little inginuity, BASIC will give any other language a 'run for the money'. After all you can add almost any function you want.
    ET

  • There are realy many thing I don't like in basic (exactly in qbasic becose there are many better compiler than qbasic) like signed integers no inline assembler, no function like malloc and no direct access to the memory, a lot of error checking when you don't need/want it.
    But there are things I love in it, when I need a simple program made very fast I always use basic, where else I could write a program on one line to display a result of an math expression. I don't know why I love basic, when I have a problem to solve I always do it in basic, it is much faster.
  • My thoughts:
    I don't think "primitive" is quite the right word to begin with. Like the designers of any piece of software, the designers of BASIC had to begin by asking, "Who will use this software, and what sort of problem will the typical user be trying to solve? A programming language can be thought of as being "close to the machine" or "close to the problem to be solved". Since the typical
    BASIC user was expected to be one without extensive knowlege of low-level arcana, and the typical task was expected relatively trivial in size and scope, BASIC was designed to relieve the "programmer" of much concern about memory allocation, addresses, etc., leaving him free to focus on his problem (in fact, to protect him and the system from his bumbling efforts).

    BASIC (especially QBasic, etc.,) are actually quite sophisticated at handling this, and in this sense, it is hardly fair to use the term "primitive".

    All this hand-holding comes at considerable cost in overhead, however, and this cost becomes more and more limiting as the user's skill level and the scope of his projects increase.
  • [b][red]This message was edited by the etlusk at 2002-4-24 20:12:5[/red][/b][hr]
    : My thoughts:
    : I don't think "primitive" is quite the right word to begin with. Like the designers of any piece of software, the designers of BASIC had to begin by asking, "Who will use this software, and what sort of problem will the typical user be trying to solve? A programming language can be thought of as being "close to the machine" or "close to the problem to be solved". Since the typical
    : BASIC user was expected to be one without extensive knowlege of low-level arcana, and the typical task was expected relatively trivial in size and scope, BASIC was designed to relieve the "programmer" of much concern about memory allocation, addresses, etc., leaving him free to focus on his problem (in fact, to protect him and the system from his bumbling efforts).
    :
    : BASIC (especially QBasic, etc.,) are actually quite sophisticated at handling this, and in this sense, it is hardly fair to use the term "primitive".
    :
    : All this hand-holding comes at considerable cost in overhead, however, and this cost becomes more and more limiting as the user's skill level and the scope of his projects increase.
    :
    My hat is off to you SIR!
    Well spoken.
    My first 'encounter' was Z80 asm, if not for ZX81 'basic' I would have given up. Damn! And now-a-days, it's still in my blood.
    ET



  • : [b][red]This message was edited by the etlusk at 2002-4-24 20:12:5[/red][/b][hr]
    : : My thoughts:
    : : I don't think "primitive" is quite the right word to begin with. Like the designers of any piece of software, the designers of BASIC had to begin by asking, "Who will use this software, and what sort of problem will the typical user be trying to solve? A programming language can be thought of as being "close to the machine" or "close to the problem to be solved". Since the typical
    : : BASIC user was expected to be one without extensive knowlege of low-level arcana, and the typical task was expected relatively trivial in size and scope, BASIC was designed to relieve the "programmer" of much concern about memory allocation, addresses, etc., leaving him free to focus on his problem (in fact, to protect him and the system from his bumbling efforts).
    : :
    : : BASIC (especially QBasic, etc.,) are actually quite sophisticated at handling this, and in this sense, it is hardly fair to use the term "primitive".
    : :
    : : All this hand-holding comes at considerable cost in overhead, however, and this cost becomes more and more limiting as the user's skill level and the scope of his projects increase.
    : :
    : My hat is off to you SIR!
    : Well spoken.
    : My first 'encounter' was Z80 asm, if not for ZX81 'basic' I would have given up. Damn! And now-a-days, it's still in my blood.
    : ET

    [green]For me it was TRS-80 BASIC. I never would have been interested if it wasn't for those cute little Radio-Shack computers.[/green]

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories